I like that you're honest and admit that you don't care about the sectarian strife. But, do you believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq? If not, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If so, why should we leave Iraq but stay in Afghanistan? Or do you believe we should leave both countries?

Here is an earlier post of mine from a couple of months ago that kind of applies to some of the debate that's going on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robh4413

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

But here's where the Dems and Repubs split. In fact, here's where some Repubs and other Repubs disagree. What does finish acutally look like? Is is it a matter of duration? Are we looking for the number of casualties to subside? Are we looking for certain 'heads' to be removed and or captured? What will order look like for Iraq? And the bigger question is how long will it take? If someone said, it may take another 5-7 years to get things on track, do we have the wherewithal to undertake such a task?

Are we actually waiting for a complete and absolute presence of peace and cease fire before we say we've won the war on terror? I don't know the answers to those questions and many of our politicians are grappling with the same thing.

Look, many of the Dems are saying if we 'stay the course', as it were, are we just saying we waited as long as we could to satisfy both sides of the aisle. I think the argument for pulling out is, whether it's now or later, much isn't going to improve. So let's salvage what we have and begin to draw down the troop levels.

I disagree with a lot that you're saying.

A very good friend of mine recently came home from his year long tour in Iraq and continues to think that there is a lot of promise there. The military objective isn't this abstract concept that your portraying it to be.

We're giving contracts out to the local population to help set up the infrastructure, and providing them security while they attempt to rebuild the country, while teaching the locals how to facilitate growth, and stability.

We're helping speed along the progress of businesses by making sure they have reliable resources (electric, water, gas, etc...). The thinking goes beyond beating down insurgents, beyond taking the "heads" of certain leaders.

The theory behind it is that as the economy grows, the nation will realize who are the good guys. Quite frankly, the country is sick and tired of all the fighting. They're yearning for stability, yearning for consistency. They don't deserve a surge of troops, and then a total bail out... resulting in widespread chaos.

We attacked initially, I didn't support the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that this is anywhere close to a parallel situation. We can't fix our mistake by bailing out, we can't let these people suffer because we ****ed up. It just isn't fair.

Ultimately, like I said earlier, It's about the economy:

If there are no places to work, no stability, no direction, then the youth will turn to what's in front of them. Instead of getting a job, raising a family, and working towards a better future, there will certainly be youths joining the insurgency. The problem will rise exponentially without economic success.

Conversely, if we do succeed, there is hope for a self sustaining democratic society. This isn't a lost cause. We aren't here dicking around. There is a clear cut plausible objective, and I think most people don't realize that. They watch the news, see the death, and lump it all into one big mess.

The biggest problem my buddy from Iraq had with the media, is that they don't report all the progress that's being made. We don't see the good, and get all fussy when someone suggests that it exists.

I'm not saying that the place isn't a war zone. I'm not saying that there isn't death and killing, because there absolutely is. What I am saying, is that there is a clear cut way to win, which is supporting the economic interests and hence produce stability and a self-sustaining government.

I have two questions. First, were we right to involve ourself in the European territorial dispute of the 1940s?

And second, when did we have troops stationed in Mecca?

Lastly. let me say that my experience with Republican isolationists like Ron Paul, or Pat Buchanan, or Bob Novak has been that they are mostly just good old fashioned anti-semites. I think they want to pull out of there because they would like to see the Jews driven into the sea.

This is in no way meant to throw an accusation like that at anyone here. I want to be perfectly clear about that. I'm not calling anyone an anti-semite in this forum. Unless Pat Buchanan is posting in which case I am.

We entered WW 2 because:
1) We supported the U.K. and friendlies with both humanitarian supplies and military hardware.
2) We deprived the Japaneses of natural resources once they started their gears of war.
3) Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and United states declared war on Japan.
4) Germany declared war on United States because of self interest because the Americans were supporting the U.K.

The United States entered the war at the right time, under the right circumstances, and it had the moral high ground. We would not be in the position we are today if it were not for WW 2.

As for Having troops in Mecca, well, we had roughly 5K troops in Saudi Arabia during the Golf war. We don't have troops inside holy city of Mecca, but as far as people like Bin Laden are concerned, the entire Arabian peninsula is holy land.

No he got the shaft because he is a racist P.O.S. He also dropped the N word frequently at UVa, and it was a big deal when that surfaced. Of course the sleaze denied it. It is just sad this kinda overt racism is even present in politics. Says something about the values of the Republican party and who they support.

i don't think someone using the "n" word during their college days makes them a racist. everyone has used the "n" word at some point in their lives. does that make everyone a racist ? the only reason he lost was because of the anti-bush voting. to say he lost for any other reason is a joke.

__________________ Hail to Allen/Shanahan .... bring in some baby hogs and load up on diesel fuel !!! (budw38)

I like that you're honest and admit that you don't care about the sectarian strife. But, do you believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq? If not, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If so, why should we leave Iraq but stay in Afghanistan? Or do you believe we should leave both countries?

Yeah this is the whole thing. I'm quoting SGG here because he brings up a good point, this post is more directed at Beem.

Al Qaeda has been working hard to expand and establish a presence in Iraq. They sent Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in there to set up shop. Luckily, we killed his ass. Then they sent in another guy, can't remember his name. They will continue to attempt to establish a HQ in Iraq to strengthen their influence on the Muslim community, recruit new members, and continue to wage war on the West.

Our goal should be not only to track them down and kill them, but to limit their influence on young, impressionable Islamic citizens. If we don't fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, their influence will spread unabated, and soon enough could have the financing and network capable of striking us at home whenever they please.

We can't just stay out of "messy Mideast religious conflicts." The Sunnis and Shia are indeed ready to destroy one another, but that's not why we're there. We're there to keep our country safe from Al Qaeda. We're not at war with Iraq, or the Sunnis, or the Shia, or Iran, or Syria. We're at war with Al Qaeda, and they just happen to be working to establish themselves within Iraq (where there is a power vacuum) and in Afghanistan (where the regrouping Taliban offers a safe-haven for base operations).

I am not generalizing, even before Allen ran there were doubt as to his racial views. They again surfaced during his campaign with the Macaka incident and his usage of the N word frequently during his time at UVa.

I do feel it says something about Republican leadership in the party or atleast in VA, to support a candidate like that when an issue such as racism should not be tolerated whatsoever. Also if you watch the Macaka clip, you can hear much of his supporters laughing and applauding. That is just sick in my honest opinion.

I have nothing wrong with Republicans, and I myself vote Republican for the House(Congressman Wolfe), but I do have a huge problem with overt racism. Perhaps he is a product of his environment or whatever, but the Republicans should not support him if there is suspicion and he supporters should not approve of that kind of stuff.

You do realize the Macaca incident was not overtly racist right? It was a nickname he had given the guy as he hounded their campaign. You cannot honestly believe that a polished senator like Allen would openly and on camera use a term he knew to be racist? I am not saying that Allen was great or anything. I am simply pointing out how ridiculous the reaction to the whole situation was. Considering that he apoligized and stated that he did not know it was racist should have been enough to let the story die.

Alos, you do realize Macaca is about as racist as say REDSKIN is right?

As for Having troops in Mecca, well, we had roughly 5K troops in Saudi Arabia during the Golf war. We don't have troops inside holy city of Mecca, but as far as people like Bin Laden are concerned, the entire Arabian peninsula is holy land.

The Golf War? That's why I'm for Fred Couples.

If there were never any troops in Mecca then people shouldn't say there were.

Bin Laden considers many places to be holy and for all we know God may tell him about more later tonight. If the goal is to not offend the likes of him then we should all covert to Islam.

The World War 2 analogy is important because the America First/Coughlinite brand of conservatism that Paul is now carrying the banner for was oppossed to that as well.

In this global society the idea of "here and there" is obsolete. Do you think that Bin Laden would start herding goats if we barricade ourselves within the North American continent?

You do realize the Macaca incident was not overtly racist right? It was a nickname he had given the guy as he hounded their campaign. You cannot honestly believe that a polished senator like Allen would openly and on camera use a term he knew to be racist? I am not saying that Allen was great or anything. I am simply pointing out how ridiculous the reaction to the whole situation was. Considering that he apoligized and stated that he did not know it was racist should have been enough to let the story die.

Alos, you do realize Macaca is about as racist as say REDSKIN is right?

i think there was an over reaction, but as you say, a polished senator is also very careful in the words that they use. anything even close to be in question isnt used, for fear of something like this happening.

__________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan

i think there was an over reaction, but as you say, a polished senator is also very careful in the words that they use. anything even close to be in question isnt used, for fear of something like this happening.

Yeah but the hoopla surrounding that whole thing only serves to detract from the real question, are the guy's policies sound and can he lead effectively?

He didn't know it was a racist term, it was a slip of the tongue, a poor choice of words. Is that the argument for why he'd be a poor leader? That's flimsy.

It's just like saying Bill Clinton was a poor leader because he let Monica give him a beej. It makes no sense.

i agree. for me, Clinton was one of the best presidents we have had in a long time. alittle head shot is his personal business. i don't know where Allen stands on the issues, because just about all of his press was about his choice of one word

__________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan

I don't think Allen knew what the hell Macaca meant and the crowd was more clueless than he was. So say Allen lost because of the Macaca incident would be a reach. Virginia is simply not a gimme state anymore and his opponent was a worthy opponent. Not to mention the fact that the country was ready to change the faces in congress.

I don't think Allen knew what the hell Macaca meant and the crowd was more clueless than he was. So say Allen lost because of the Macaca incident would be a reach. Virginia is simply not a gimme state anymore and his opponent was a worthy opponent. Not to mention the fact that the country was ready to change the faces in congress.

I think you're right here. Allen might have won by a small margin without the whole macaca mess but he lost for the same reason most other republicans losts. An unpopular war and a culture of corruption fostered by the high-ups in Washington. It is tough for the base to mobilize for guys they don't trust and that affects all races. Webb did a good job of niching his way into the middle too.